Sanderson v. Lucky 7 Mining Co.

Sanderson commenced an action in NSW Supreme Court against Lucky 7 Mining Co. alleging personal injury in the course of his employment at a Lucky 7 mine located in South Australia. While on the job, Sanderson fell off a ladder. The ladder, which allegedly had a defective rung, was manufactured in Queensland by another defendant, Security Appliances, which is based in Queensland. You may assume that issues relating to the manufacture of the ladder and liability of the manufacturer would be determined under the law of Queensland.

Lucky 7's principal place of business is South Australia and asserts that it has many witnesses to the accident located in SA. Lucky 7 is part of a larger corporation located in Victoria.

At the time of the accident, plaintiff was a resident and domiciliary of NSW and worked at the mine on a fly-in - fly-out basis. His treating doctors are NSW based.

There is no issue as to whether the accident took place; the key factual issues relating to liability are the apportionment of negligence between Lucky 7 and Security Appliances, and the amount of damages suffered by the plaintiff.

Lucky 7 would like the case cross-vested (transferred) to SA Supreme Court. Lucky 7 states that there are expedited procedures for this type of claim in SA and that mining accidents are a subject of expertise in SA courts.

In connection with an application to cross-vest, Lucky 7 should:

A.Submit to the Supreme Court of South Australia an application to transfer on the grounds that NSW is a clearly inappropriate forum.

B.Make an application for the Supreme Court of South Australia to stay proceedings in order that arbitration can proceed.

C.Make an application to the NSW Supreme Court for a transfer to SA based on the interests of justice standard in the cross-vesting legislation.

D.Argue that SA has exclusive jurisdiction over personal injuries that occur in that State.

Q2 ) Which of the following are relevant factors for the Court to consider in connection with the appropriate application of Lucky 7

A.Place where the parties reside.

B.Where the witnesses are located

C.Location of the subject matter of the dispute

D.Availability of expedited hearings

E.Inconsistency of NSW legal precedents.

F.Which State's law will govern the proceedings

G.All of the above

H.A, B, C, D and F

I.A, B, C, E and F

Q3) If there were a motion to cross-vest made by Lucky 7, could the Court transfer the matter to Queensland?

A.No, because Security has not meet its burden of proof or persuasion because it did not seek relief from the Court.

B.No, because there is no evidence that Lucky 7 has offices in Queensland.

C.Although unlikely, under the interests of justice test it is possible because there is no specific burden of proof.

D.Yes, because Queensland would be neutral ground between Lucky 7 and Sanderson.

q4) In a situation where there are roughly equal connections among SA, NSW, and Queensland to the matter in dispute, in an application for cross-vesting:

A.The Court is most likely to deny the application because interests of justice for a transfer have not been shown.

B.If there were extremely similar or related proceedings in one of the States, the Court may be likely to have the case heard in the jurisdiction with the prior actions pending.

C.If the plaintiff were a juvenile, a transfer could not be made without the consent of parents or legal guardians.

D.A and B

E.A and C